Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
For the Appellant: Ms A Brocklesby-Weller, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: Mr A Bandegani Counsel instructed by North Kensington Law Centre
Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 we make an order prohibiting the disclosure or publication of any matter likely to lead members of the public to identify the respondents. Breach of this order can be punished as a contempt of court. We make this order because two of the respondents are young children.
This history was all accepted before the First-tier Tribunal. The case was argued on grounds relying on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and was resolved in favour of the claimants by the First-tier Tribunal Judge.
The first was that the sponsor�s status is precarious and the rules do not generally provide for a person to join someone whose status is precarious. In some circumstances this would be a very compelling reason for refusing anyone permission to enter. We are not sure that that is a particularly powerful reason on the facts of this case. Typically a person with unsettled status in the United Kingdom will be a student with leave to enter for a temporary purpose and is in no position to think about promoting family life.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.